[net.nlang] Missing positives

dis2@houxm.UUCP (01/19/84)

In the style of Biil Brown:
 
Is it ept to cite "inept"?
  
Am I pudent to cite "impudent"?
   
Rather than keep it bosomed, I cite "umbosomed".
   
Do I merit a precation for citing "imprecation"?
   
It is certainly effable to cite "ineffable".
    
Is there a passe to cite "impasse"?
  
It is toward to cite "untoward"?
    
It is fathomable to cite "unfathomable"?
    
Am I regenerate if I cite "unregenerate"?
    
Is is ruly to cite "unruly"?
    
Is this tenth citation told by citing "untold"?
   
Do I feel consolate to cite "disconsolate"?
   
Is this list junct by lastly citing "disjunct"?

robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (01/20/84)

It IS apt to cite inept.
				  - Toby Robison
			          decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
				  or:   allegra!eosp1!robison
				  (maybe: princeton!eosp1!robison)

barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (01/21/84)

Anyone care to flame about "flammable" and "inflammable"?
-- 
			Barry Margolin
			ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
			UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:ags@CS-Mordred.UUCP (01/24/84)

>  Anyone care to flame about "flammable" and "inflammable"?

Nah.  "flammable" and "inflammable" are (by definition) un-flame-able.

-- 

				Dave Seaman
				..!pur-ee!pucc-k:ags

plaskon@hplabsc.UUCP (Dawn Plaskon) (02/10/84)

And do not forget:

Would it be inadvertent to leave out advertent?